Talk:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia/Archive 9

Protection needed?
It seems to me that both User:Lvivske and User:GlaubePL have broken the WP:1RR restriction on this article (this needs double-checking to be sure). One option is to block both of them; another option is a period of full protection. Please comment if you have a recommendation of how to deal with this. The talk discussion is going fairly well but L. and G. are not waiting for it to reach a conclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to just step away...but not all the revs are related to the ongoing discussion. For instance, I checked the source on a statement in the lede (the source said "from social and economic spheres") and I was immediately reverted back...and now I removed an unsourced photo and was immediately reverted again, and called for "denial"??
 * I think we should have a super-neutral lede [with regards to figures] until we reach consensus on that front to avoid fighting.--Львівське (говорити) 22:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's not block anyone. Yet. Both users are participating in talk page discussion and the 1RR restriction was placed some time ago so it's very possible that 1RR was broken simply because people forgot/were not aware of it. At this point, a reminder (which is what this is) is sufficient. Also, I don't think protection is yet needed though that may become the case.

I would like to remind the participants that "he who wins" is not "he who reverts the most" but "he who reverts last". And reverting last means "convincing others that their view is supported by sources" and establishing consensus. Volunteer Marek 00:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I hate to go back to this again but I had to fix the quote once again. GaubePL took it upon himself to change the wording around (to "purge all") despite what's actually in the book. The quote reads "It's main goal was to [...] remove - by force, if necessary - non-Ukrainians from the social and economic spheres of a future Ukrainian state." (pg 204). I don't know if this just doesn't sit well with him or what, but why he's reverting/removing the 'social and economic' part that the author mentions is anyone's guess. --Львівське (говорити) 02:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the sources say about killing and not about removing from 'social and economic' life! The fragment about removing from 'social and economic' life refers to 1930's and cannot be used for 1943-44. Is it clear? GlaubePL (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The source says exactly as I quoted it above, you know this. And the source discusses the OUN's main goal, it doesn't specify a timeframe or that that 'goal' changed after the war started. The sentence was clearly based on the quote above (that you are now disputing) and then altered to fit a POV by changing 2 parts. Is it clear?--Львівське (говорити) 00:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

VM, there was absolutely no justification for this en-masse revert. The Huta part was one thing, we're discussing that now, but the other various edits being reverted in there under some guise of "he just doesn't like it" when all of them had summaries. Not to mention, there were other various copy edits, grammar, and other small changes included in there. To make matters worse, it hasn't even been 24 hours since your last attack on my edits, meaning you're now violating the 1RR on the article. --Львівське (говорити) 06:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Table again - let's finish it
NOTE: John Paul Himka is not Ukrainian. I think born in Canada (French Canadian mother?)

Here is the current version (3/2/2012):

Other

 * Polska-Ukraina - "Polska-Ukraina: trudne pytania", 2000, t. 9, p.403 : "Present state of Ukrainian historiography does not allow to precise number of Ukrainian casualties in the regions"

Context
The article needs context -- what lead to the rise of OUN. Where are the citations re how Ukrainians were not afforded basic rights under Polish rule -- restrictions on property rights that left many Ukrainians in the most abject poverty (example: children in subcarpathia suffering from night blindness due to malnutrition). At the same time, the Polish governnment was settling Poles from the west in the region, giving them land. Polish police were in every village. Landowners lorded over locals with impunity. There were also severe limits to higher education for Ukrainians. In short, many Ukrainians saw no future for themselves as individuals or as a people within the Polish state. There was no chance of getting hired for a state job unless a Ukrainian converted to R.C. The article states "The political conflicts escalated in the Second Polish Republic during the interwar period, particularly in the 1930s as a result of a cycle of terrorist actions by the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, formed in Poland, and the ensuing state repressions.[12]" -- I would say Political conflicts escalated as a result of gross social injustices and inequality between Ukrainians and Poles, and some Ukrainians were attracted to extremist positions. It doesn't excuse massacres to understand the desperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zajchyk (talk • contribs) 03:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC) <!- Zajchyk


 * The article needs contex of the Holodomor, Soviet terrorism and intelligence in Poland (Communist Party of Western Ukraine, assasination of a moderate poliitician Tadeusz Hołówko and Ukrainian activist Ivan Babii, an assault against Kyryl Studynsky, hate writings by Dmytro Dontsov.Xx236 (talk) 12:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Denial
I think everybody in this forum, including administration, should read Per Rudling's piece "The OUN, The UPA and the Holocaust" which is about Ukrainian nationalists war crimes' denial (already linked):. Let me cite: "Denial of the fascist and anti-Semitic nature of the OUN, its war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and participation in the Holocaust have become central components of the intellectual history of the Ukrainian diaspora" (page20)

"the narrative of denial and myth making around the OUN-UPA is now again mostly the preserve of the extreme right in the diaspora and Ukraine proper." (page 38)

Additionally, for Polish reading people, examples how this denial looks in practise: (article how Ukrainian nationalists denied crimes in Ostrówki and Wola Ostrowiecka). I think Wikipedia administration should understand that every massive crime has it's deniers and Volhynian slaughter is not an exception. GlaubePL (talk) 22:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't consider Nasz Dziennik as a reliable source, although the factual info in that article is probably correct - one way to see the potential "bias" is to note that the way ND writes up the exhumation and burial of the victims is by focusing on the denial aspect of it by *some* Ukrainian organizations while not paying much attention to the fact that this reburial was supported and green lit by Ukrainian authorities themselves (mówił ks. bp Marcjan Trofimiak, ordynariusz łucki, dziękując ukraińskim władzom za umożliwienie godnego pochówku ). It's a bit like the Zawadka Morochowska thing brought up by Bandurist up above - the source is unreliable, but the basic info is probably true enough.
 * Along similar lines, there's a part in Motyka's "Od Rzezi..." where he talks about how the monument to the Poles killed in a particular massacres by UPA (Parosle? or maybe one of these two) was actually upkept and taken care off through out the post war period by a local Ukrainian farmer.
 * With regard to Rudling, we should make up our minds - either include him through out, including his casualty estimates (possibly noting some problems), and his statement about this denialism, or exclude him. I think if we go by strict interpretation of NPOV and RS policy, that would suggest inclusion. Volunteer Marek 23:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * GaubePL, is this in relation to you accusing me of "denial" when I removed the pic? Because that was, and still is, a huge accusation to make to another editor.--Львівське (говорити) 02:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would prefer you to explain this edition: You wrote that the OUN-B goal, specified at the Second Conference of the OUN-B, was to remove non-Ukrainians from the social and economic spheres of a future Ukrainian state. But the source (Gibney's "Immigration...") referenced in the article says:
 * "Simultaneously, steps were undertaken to eliminate "foreign elements" in Ukraine. OUN-B posters and leaflets incited the Ukrainian population to murder Poles and "Judeo-Muscovites". Since the majority of Jews in German-occuppied Ukraine had already perished at the hands of the Nazis, the OUN-B concentrated its assault on Poles. In February 1943 ,taking into account the possibility of Germany's defeat, the Third Conference of the OUN-B finalized its plans. Fearing that the Polish-Ukrainian conflict would compel Poles to gravitate toward an alliance with Soviet power-base in Western Ukraine, the OUN-B leadership also reasoned that the victorious Allies, who would determine the postwar border settlements, would be forced to recognize ethnically homogenous Ukrainian lands as a fait acompli. In the late winter and early spring of 1943, the assault on Polish settlements began. Backed by peasant self-defence units, the OUN-B detachments attacked Polish villages at night or in the early morning, butchering all inhabitants regardless age or sex."


 * So the source clearly states, that the 3rd Conference decided to murder Poles, but you misquoted that it just wanted to remove them from social and economic spheres. It makes a difference! GlaubePL (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop misrepresenting the source. You are citing page 204, which clearly says social/economic spheres; and posting an unrelated quote from page 205. I fixed the quote, you reverted and added extra info from page 205. I then fixed the quote again, and added a summary on the leaflets info you above posted. This should be clear as day to anyone who is actually reading the information--Львівське (говорити) 01:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * VM, why did you remove this tag when it was already established that it blatantly misrepresented the source?--Львівське (говорити) 04:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you don't understand what the source reads. The text about removing from social/economic spheres refers to 1930's and not to 1943. The source clearly says about killing in 1943.GlaubePL (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, page 204 was originally cited. This diff from May 2011 (maybe I could go back further but I think this illustrates the original entry well enough) that page 204 was cited and the " was to purge all non-Ukrainians from the future Ukrainian state. " was clearly taken from the phrasing on page 204, but misrepresenting the source material, which stated " was to remove non-Ukrainians from the social and economic spheres of a future Ukrainian state. " You now state that "oh, it's from the 30s" but the bottom line is that the author was cited and misquoted. Page 205 says nothing about its "main goal" at all, nor any mention of of "17-23 February 1943" Second Congress (an April 1941 one is mentioned on 204, and yes, purging is mentioned on that page). --Львівське (говорити) 17:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Another Lvivskie's edition:. The number of Polish victims in Galicia according to Snyder decreased from 25k to 20k while Snyder writes about 25k. Ukrainian casualties "in the region" Lvivskie stated as high as 2k-20k while cited source (Motyka "Od rzezi...") dismisses the number of 20k! (acc. to Motyka it was 10-15k). Besides, "the region" was not only Volhynia and Galicia, but also Lublin district. So, these editions had nothing to do with WER rules. GlaubePL (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Next Lvivskie's edition:. The source says about 50-60,000 victims in Volhynia, Lwivskie wrote: 35,000. GlaubePL (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You are fully aware of the chart and where those figures come from. Please stop trolling for ref errors.--Львівське (говорити) 01:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

In terms of the figure in the lede and the infobox - what exactly is the objection here? The present figures reflect what sources say. The only alternative I see is changing them to the figures of Siemaszko (casualties of up to 140,000 Poles killed) which is the number given in some Western sources like Rudling. There is the Katchanovski number of "more than 35,000", but 1) Katchanovski is a public policy guy not a historian, 2) it's not clear what he's basing this on and 3) "more than 35,000" is very much consistent with the 40,000-60,000 for Volhynia given by other sources, 4) his numbers are for Volhynia alone.

So please, leave the numbers alone. Volunteer Marek 01:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I had no idea that you decided Katchanovski wasn't a good enough source for you, even though he cites Hrytsiuk, who seems to be up there with Motyka as a reference figure. Also flies against Magocsi. Not to mention you've put in the low-ball figures for Ukrainians killed using only the one source you like, and qualified it with the "also including Vistula" remark even though no other source out there says it. Yeah, we have a dispute here. You're cherry picking. And why do you keep bringing up Siemaszko  in the sense of "if we use the higher bound Ukrainian numbers, then we should use the EXTRMELY OFF THE WALL Polish numbers". You're comparing 10k with 100k as if 'higher = higher'--Львівське (говорити) 02:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I already addressed Katchanovski above:
 * 1. He is not a historian, unlike some of the other sources. This was the same objection as that raised in regard to Piotrowski above (who's a "sociologist of history"). Consistency requires that we apply the same standard.
 * 2. His "more than 35,000" is not inconsistent with other, more numerous, more precise sources, by actual historians.
 * 3. The "more than 35,000" is a number for ONLY Volhynia and does not include the Eastern Galicia figure. We've been through this - we cannot use numbers for a sub-region on one hand and numbers for numerous other regions, over a greater period of time on the other hand.
 * 4. It's not clear what he is basing his numbers on.
 * Also, I don't know why you bring up Magosci. His number of 20k Ukrainians killed is based on Motyka's old number, which Motyka lowered and it's implicitly included in the article.
 * You also just changed 15,000 (which is the most up to date estimate) to ... 30,000. How? If you keep bringing up Magosci, then at least use his number of 20k.
 * You removed the part of about Operation Vistula, but that is explicitly in the source. The 10-15k, or the 20k number does include those killed after the war by the communist authorities.
 * You changed 3k to 20k even though 20k is not in any reliable sources, with all of them talking about 2 to 3 k.
 * You changed the lower bound of 70k, clearly supported by sources to 50k, supposedly based on Magosci. The page given is 621. There's nothing on 621 about this (it's about Crimean Tartars). If even the text is supported by the source here then ... well, yes, it does look like Magosci is in the minority here - though my guess is that he's simply talking about Polish casualties in Volhynia.


 * Finally, you just violated the 1RR restriction of this article, of which you are well aware. Please self revert. Volunteer Marek 02:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If Motyka is claiming Vistula counts now, then that contradicts other scholars and should be stated separately. Vistula itself has its own range of deaths from different scholars. Mag says 50, Wolczuk says 60, why not just state the lower bound for what it is rather than rely SOLELY on Motyka like you're doing here? It's really a problem when all sources talk about 43-44, or 43-47, and now Motyk is including figures from 48-49; the source I'm looking at now says 12k killed by Poles in eastern Poland in 1948-49. --Львівське (говорити) 03:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ?? Several of your statements are confusing. Sure Vistula has its own range, and Motyka has gone ahead and included it with the other numbers, giving 10 to 15k total. What is this Wolczuk source? Where can I access it? Part of the problem is that pretty much any source BUT Magosci is giving numbers which are at least 60k - the discrepancy probably arises from the fact that Magosci is talking just about deaths in Volhynia but does not make it explicitly clear. And, umm, Operation Vistula WAS 1947, so it's within the 43-47 range, so Motyka is NOT including figures from 48-49. What is this source that you're looking at right now - I can't comment on it since without knowing what it is, I can't be looking at it myself. Volunteer Marek


 * And the 12k killed in eastern Poland - if that is supposed to refer to Ukrainians - doesn't make any sense. OW concluded in 1947. By end of that year all Ukrainians had been resettled and/or already killed. Any killings that happened after that were of individuals - certainly not thousands. Additionally other estimates for ALL people killed by communists for 1945-1948 give numbers along the lines of 10k. Hence if that info was true it would mean that more Ukrainians were killed than the total number of ALL people killed. Which doesn't make sense. Volunteer Marek 03:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's in the Marples book. And the only reference to year in the paragraph talks about 48-49, but the chapter ends with the figure. Maybe I read it wrong, but that's what it read to me. And Magocsi isn't talking just about Volhynia, if he was, then that'd be 20k Ukrainians dead in Volhynia.--Львівське (говорити) 04:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Snyder, in To Resolve the Ukrainian Problem Once and For All, page 87, says 50-100,000 Poles and Ukrainians were killed betwee 1943-1947.--Львівське (говорити) 04:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * and in Causes of Ethnic Cleansing, Snyder says 106k Poles + Ukrainians combined--Львівське (говорити) 05:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * K here's another issue I'm seeing. Snyder says 40k Poles killed in Volhynia in July '43, and that the UPA killed as many Ukrainians as Poles in 1943. Heroes and Villains acknowledges the July factoid (but states no figure), but says the number of Ukrainian victims was higher in October, and that in the summer of 1943, the number of victims for each side were equal. --Львівське (говорити) 04:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Here we have another example of Lvivskie's "understanding" of the sources. "Equal number of victims for each side" and the alleged beginning of massacres in Chelm region by Poles are not opinions of Marples. Marples's book "Heroes and Villains..." is a kind of rewiew. Marples reportes what different authors say. "Equal number" and "beginning in Chelm region" are opinions of Ukrainian scholar Serhiichuk, critically cited by Marples. Read this: The book [of Serhiichuk] uses primary sources selectively to present a partisan version of history that in every instance favors the Ukrainian version of events and denigrates the Poles at every opportunity. (Marples, p. 231). So, the onesided source devastated by Marples's critique, was turned by Lvivskie into Marples opinion... Lovely! GlaubePL (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Unwarranted tags
I'm sorry but these tags, , as well as some of the other ones you've been littering the article with are completely unwarranted. You're basically putting them in because you have been unable to force through your own version - unsupported by sources - of the article. That is not a good reason for including such tags. Volunteer Marek 00:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but when reliable, neutral sources are reverted and biased/weighty statements put in - and let's face it, this entire talk page is raging on about the quality of the lede - then a tag making reference to the ongoing dispute regarding the lede or systemic bias is entirely justified. You are aware of the talk page, right? How you can try to cover up that there is an ongoing issue here is just beyond me. Vecruma and Chaosdruid have both voiced concerns on this page about the bias in the article. It's one thing to dispute the sources but to dispute the dispute? jeez--Львівське (говорити) 01:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * But reliable, neutral sources are not reverted... except by you. Biased/weighty statements are not being put in, etc. Volunteer Marek 01:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Name one reliable/neutral source I've reverted? One. The above is a reliable source, but it's an opinion and putting one scholar's biased (he's defending his own work, he's biased towards himself) opinion in the lede is weighty. No single scholar should dominate the lede in the way you guys have done with Motyka.--Львівське (говорити) 02:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, let's back up, as in back up this claim I'm sorry but when reliable, neutral sources are reverted and biased/weighty statements put in with diffs. Volunteer Marek 04:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am also concerned by the unencyclopedic manner the article has evolved into. There are just too many POV adjectives which make the article unencyclopedic and almost unreadable, almost a piece of propoganda. There are many problems with the sources. One of the major problems is the systematic bias which has allowed many inaccurate statements and photograph captions to be published and republished, even after they have been shown to be inaccurate. This is one of the problems that has plagued many of the publications from Wroslaw and made many of them unusable. I feel that the tags are warrented until the lede and tone are corrected. Bandurist (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you be specific? I think the article is pretty much fine, but if there are some particular pieces which you can show to be based on unreliable sources then we can remove them. AFAICT all you could find so far is one external link which, because it was somewhat old, had one incorrect photo buried in it somewhere. Volunteer Marek 16:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * With respect to the Lede - much of the second paragraph probably belongs in the article body rather than the Lede. WIthin the article, there may be some excessive grisly details. For example, the testimony of the Polish priet from Lutsk detailing how he heard that a Polish priest was sawed in half etc. This is hearsay by a non-nuetral source that was not a direct witness of the alleged event.  Overall however, the article seems more or less nuetral to me.  Faustian (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph probably should be rewritten to exclude the quotes but I think that the overall aims of UPA do belong in the lede, as an explanation for the course of their actions. The stuff about posters and leaflets can probably be moved to the body of the article.
 * As to the description of the atrocities - there should be *some* description because many sources emphasize how brutal the killings were. However, I agree that this shouldn't be over done and certainly we should not use unreliable sources or hearsay for this. The part which mentions - but which needs a cite - Zycie religijne w Polsce pod okupacja 1939-1945 should be looked into. The other stuff appears to be from Davies, Snyder and Fergusson (I've expressed my reservations about using Fergusson before but he is a reliable source). Volunteer Marek 16:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you've written here. I think some grisly details, taken from Davies or Snyder, are indeed encyclopedic and necessary. We shouldn't ignore the type of brutality involved. I objected to Zycie religijne w Polsce pod okupacja 1939-1945 specifically, because the source is questionable (hearsay described by a Roman Catrholic priest from Lutsk - remember the vindication campaign against Orthodox by Polish Roman Catholics? Not very unbiased relayer of information) and the amount of such details seems excessive. If we're going to remove something, it ought to be that info from that source rather than from Snyder or Davies.Faustian (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Demonizing the enemy is common practice, but has no place in an encyclopedia. Much of the information regarding brutality on both sides is all hearsay and cannot be backed up. Bandurist (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you be specific as to which text is based on hearsay, rather than reliable sources? Volunteer Marek 16:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes I will. BTW why was the  tag removed? 12:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * VM contended that the article has Ukrainian bias too, apparently (???), so I guess on the grounds of two wrongs make a right or something?--Львівське (говорити) 13:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)t

(Outdent) The article currently seems nuetral to me (though I alone do not represent consensus).Faustian (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I wrote too soon. I am removing this piece of information, taken from: Maria Dębowska, Leon Popek, Duchowieństwo diecezji łuckiej. Ofiary wojny i represji okupantów 1939-1945, Lublin 2010, p. 201-202. "Chancellor of Roman Catholic Diocese of Lutsk Fr. Jan Szych reported to Holy See in the letter of August 23, 1945: "In 1943, Ukrainians organized a terrible slaughter. Armed, they attacked Poles and murdered them with full cruelty: they cut down with axes, burned alive, gouged eyes and tore tongues, some were wrapped in barbed wire and thrown into pits. Several times Ukrainians besieged a church during Mass, killing believers and priests and blowing the church up. According to the testimonies, the number of victims is 30,000 and even 50,000. There were murdered 17 priests in that time, some were tortured before death. Fr. Karol Baran was reportedly sawed in two. Ukrainian priests in their temple blessed the knives for murdering Poles."[74]


 * The book itself doesn't seem to have been peer-reviewed/published by a university. Furthermore, the testimony is hearsay from the Polish Roman Catholic Diocese's Chancellor of Lutsk. Timothy Snyder's book about Jozewsky details the forced conversion into Roman Catholicism of Orthodox Churches and stated that the last act of the Polish State in Volhynia was to forcibly turn the last remaining Orthodox Church in Lutsk into a Roman Catholic one. A high-ranking Polish Church official in Volhynia from those times would hardly be a nuetral unbiased source for events in Volhynia.


 * So, I am removing that quote. Now, I feel that the article is nuetral and support removing the nuetrality tag.Faustian (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * EN Wiki amazes me more and more. The quote from the book of two PhD historians removed. OMG GlaubePL (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Quote is by Chancellor of Roman Catholic Diocese of Lutsk Fr. Jan Szych. The article already has plenty of descriptioons similar to what was removed, from less controversial sources. This article shouldn't be massacre-porn.Faustian (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Jan Szych was Chancellor in Lutsk from 1926 - that is, during the time of the height of anti-Orthodox persecution and forced conversion of Orthodox to his Roman Catholic church in the late 1930's, a time when hundreds of Orthodox churches were burned to the ground or forcibly converted, etc. Szych, in Lutsk, oversaw the forced conversion of the last Orthodox Church in his city to the Roman Catholic one - as noted by Snyder, the last act of the Polish state in Volhynia prior to the Nazi-Soviet invasion.  Since we have info from nuetral unbiased sources already, Jan Szych's claims are unnecessary here. It's like including claims of Bosnian Muslim or Croat oppression of Serbs by a Bosnian Sernb official (or vice versa) when other sources exist and can be used instead. Or claims of an UPA official listed in a book written by someone from Ukraine with a Ph.D. in history but not published by a university or in a peer-reviewed forum. If this sort of information is all over Polish wiki - too bad for Polish wiki.Faustian (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Massacre-porn? Volhynia sloughter was the worst genocide ever, I am not talking about the victim numbers but about cruelty madness in UPA side. Dont try to compare genocide made by Ukrainian nationalist with some "forced conversions". This proofs nothing. In II Rzeczpospolita Ukrainians had same rights as now Poles in Ukraina. But it was about 80 years ago! Now Poles even dont have any own house for minority in Lwów, most churches were converted to Greek Catholics churchers.--Paweł5586 (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Worst "genocide" in history? Minority rights in interwar Poland? Oh boy...--Львівське (говорити) 19:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it was the most cruel genocide in history, people were tourtured to death without mercy - children, woman. Maybe it can be compare with Ustaše, but even them leave Serbs hope - they can convert to Catholic to save their lives.--Paweł5586 (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not good, when people with such a nationalistic POV, narrow historical perpective, and anger contribute to these kinds of topics. In articles about such massacres (Poles are not unique as victims here - in Africa victims were often forced to eat their parents; the Croatian Ustashe killed far more Serbs than Ukrainian nationalists did Poles, and were no less cruel in their methods). Often details about massacres are not mentioned at all. Note that the article about the Rwandan Genocide which involved actions similar to those as what happened in Volhynia do not include nearly as many gory details as this article does.  Neither does the article about the Second Congo War. Or the article about the Haitian slave rebellion, where for example as a "flag" the slaves used a French infant speared on a pole (this detail, like all gory details, is not included in the wikipedia article here: ).  However the article about the Croatian Ustashe's concentration camp, Jasenovac concentration camp, is quite graphic indeed. I suppose some Eastern Europeans do love their massacre-porn. But it seems to stop being encyclopedic after a certain point.Faustian (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

So, the readers of Wikipedia are not allowed to know that Holy See was informed about Volhynian massacres, because Szych was biased according to you. We should inform the Pope. GlaubePL (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah - so according to you that's why that relatively lengthy pasage was included? Simply to state that the Vatican was informed?Faustian (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The passage reads that Vatican was informed about these atrocities. And quoting Szych is "massacre-porn" but quoting Snyder or Davies who write the same is not? And what about this: late 1930's, a time when hundreds of Orthodox churches were burned... or forcibly converted. AFAIK the Orthodox churches in 2nd RP were not burned at all (instead they were ruined). And in Volhynia and Galicia they were neither burned nor ruined. Please stop porn-arguments. GlaubePL (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, at some point the article ceases being encyclopedic and begins to read like this section of a former expatriate newspaper in Moscow: . An argument can be made that all details ought to be excluded, and simply "murders" or "rapes" be mentioned, without detailed descriptions of how and in which position each person was killed (sawed in half! split open on a table! burned alive! children  tied to a tree with barbed wire! - oops, that was a gypsy woman doing it to her own children). Simple descriptions of "mudered"  is how this sort of thing is treated in other articles, such as about Rwanda or Haiti. I wouldn't go that far - I certainly think that some details are necessary to accurately portray the horror of the events.  In that case, it's probably best to limit those details to a few examples and to those provided by impeccable nuetral sources such as Snyder or Davies. This is how the article currently stands and it seems quite acceptable.Faustian (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In the Galicia section there are a lot more references to some priest giving his account of things, as well as hearsay on his part of a Ukrainian priest's words. I tagged, but didn't remove. Should we remove it as well in the same fashion as the above material?--Львівське (говорити) 00:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's sources from Davies, so should be okay.Faustian (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the content. Volunteer Marek took it upon himself to revert the tags so as to keep the contentious material in the article without discussing it here. It really seems to line up with all of the above discussion, so why he's avoiding the talk - I don't know. --Львівське (говорити) 06:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Pawel is honest about the POV that he is pushing on wikipedia: .Faustian (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "It's not good, when people with such a nationalistic POV, narrow historical perpective, and anger contribute to these kinds of topics." I think exactly the same about you. --Paweł5586 (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The opinion of someone who admits that according to him, the Volhynian massacre "was the most cruel genocide in history." Such "objectivity" probably doesn't fit very well here.Faustian (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Huta
Just a note but I removed a large chunk of text on a massacre that occurred. According to the text, it said that the SS Galizen and Nazis did it, not the UPA/OUN. On these grounds, I removed it as it is unrelated to the UPA massacres which are the topic of this article.--Львівське (говорити) 00:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I put it back in - this is one of the best known of the individual massacres. The article is about massacres - not necessarily just those by UPA. Additionally some sources state that UPA soldiers did participate in this massacre. Volunteer Marek 02:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed.Faustian (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this not a slippery slope that would then include NKVD assaults and well...the Holocaust? Based on the current lede, this article is about the ethnic cleansing carried out by the OUN-UPA, not Nazi-SS purges--Львівське (говорити) 06:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * UPA helped the Nazis to conduct punitive actions against Poles.GlaubePL (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a verifiable source for this? This took place in Feb 1944 but Germany was against the OUN-B from 1941, and in Feb 1943 the UPA began fighting the Nazis openly; so the idea that they had a one-off reunion sounds a bit fishy to me. According to the Huta article, "Ukrainian police took part in the punitive action, and that one could assume that members of this police force included previous members of the UPA". This seems a bit backwards, as Ukrainians abandoned auxiliary police to join the UPA, not the other way around. Not to mention, the author is just assuming here.--Львівське (говорити) 17:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

One of the most infamous massacres took place on February 28, 1944, in the Polish village of Huta Pieniacka, with over 1,000 inhabitants. The village served as a shelter for refugees including Polish Jews,[93] as well as a recuperation base for Polish and Communist partisans. One AK unit was active there. In the winter of 1944 a Soviet partisan unit numbering 1,000 was stationed in the village for two weeks.[93][94][94] Huta Pieniacka's villagers, although poor, organized a well-fortified and armed self-defense unit that fought off a Ukrainian and German reconnaissance attack on February 23, 1944.[95] Two soldiers of the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Galicia (1st Ukrainian) Division of the Waffen-SS were killed and one wounded by the villagers. On February 28, elements of the Ukrainian Division from Brody returned with 500-600 men assisted by a group of civilian nationalists. The killing spree lasted all day. Kazimierz Wojciechowski, the commander of the Polish self-defense unit, was drenched with gasoline and burned alive at the main square. The village was utterly destroyed and all of its occupants killed.[94] The civilians, mostly women and children, were rounded up at a church, divided and locked in barns which were set on fire.[96] Estimates of casualties in the Huta Pieniacka massacre vary, and include 500 (Ukrainian archives),[97] over 1,000 (Tadeusz Piotrowski),[98] and 1,200 (Sol Littman).[99] Some historians deny the role of the Ukrainian 14th SS Galician Division in the killings, and attribute them entirely to German units, while others disagree.[93][verification needed] According to IPN investigation, the crime was committed by the 4th battalion of the Ukrainian 14th SS Division.[96] A military journal of the Ukrainian 14th SS Galician Division condemned the killing of Poles. In a March 2, 1944 article directed to the Ukrainian youth, written by military leaders, Soviet partisans were blamed for the murders of Poles and Ukrainians, and the authors stated that "If God forbid, among those who committed such inhuman acts, a Ukrainian hand was found, it will be forever excluded from the Ukrainian national community."[93] According to Yale historian Timothy Snyder, the Ukrainian 14th SS Galician Division's role in the ethnic cleansing of Poles from western Ukraine was marginal.[100]
 * So VM says some UPA soldiers assisted, and GaublePL says the UPA helped...but here is the paragraph...and it makes zero mention of those claims. Snyder, too, makes no mention of this alleged SS-UP joint operation.
 * I think

--Львівське (говорити) 17:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It should, at the very least, be moved to the German involvement section, or a subsection of its own separate from the rest of the Galicia/UPA content.
 * 2) If included, the lede (and infobox) should be reworked

In Huta Pieniacka UPA SS-Galizien together made massacre of Poles.--Paweł5586 (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Lvivske, read more. GlaubePL (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw your edit and I'm still very doubtful of it. Especially if it's just repeating what was said here, in which case it sounds like misguided witness testimony--Львівське (говорити) 18:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems you know better than IPN prosecutors. GlaubePL (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Bias in sources
In this weird edit, why was the content from the OUN reports removed as "propaganda" (it was an internal military report, how is that propaganda? lol) but 'Polish underground reports' are left in without a problem. This really speaks to the systemic Polish bias going on in this article. To make matters worse, the removed material was from Ilyushin, an historian, but the stuff left in has absolutely no source whatsoever. What's going on here? --Львівське (говорити) 06:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Father Szych's letter (let's say "internal report to Vatican") removed as biased, why should be OUN report kept? GlaubePL (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The source for that was the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, which stated that the OUN's reports were corroborated by German documents. It's removal by VM  was a mistake. No comparison between the two pieces of information.Faustian (talk) 13:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Lvivskie I suggest you to read about OUN orders to falsify history in reports. Second thing AK has nothing to hide, AK command command forbade killing of the Ukrainian civilians and the Ukrainian UPA leadership ordered the murder of the entire Polish population. Do you see the difference?--Paweł5586 (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is just silly historical revisionism on your part. Internal OUN military reports had the goal to falsify history? AK never killed civvys? It's hard to take you seriously when your perspective is so clouded.--Львівське (говорити) 16:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have never said that. I said AK have never ordered ethnic cleansing operations, there were some retaliatory actions but there werent organized like OUN. In other side we have wide anti-Polish actions and the territory of 4 Voivodeships, you can find many UPA and OUN orders and reports from massacres. In Motyka's newest books (Od rzezi wołyńskiej do akcji Wisła) are informations about OUN propaganda and Szuchewycz orders who wanted to hide the crimes of nationalists and blame the Poles. These prepared reports and documents have been used after the war by Ukrainian historians who supported OUN. They simply were trying to white-washing UPA.--Paweł5586 (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

POV - Events during the times of the Second Polish Republic
There is no informations about anti-Polish (mosty against civilians) actions by UWO and OUN, Pierwsze wystąpienie UWO, Drugie wystąpienie UWO, Organizacja_Ukraińskich_Nacjonalistów, Dywersja OUN w 1939 roku. In 1939 about 2-3 thousand civilians died from OUN hands.--Paweł5586 (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not opposed to including this, provided it is from reliable sources such as Motyka.Faustian (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The enormity of this chapter shocks me. It is hypertrophied, apparently in order to turn readers' attention from massacres to alleged "background", often relying on biased sources like Subtelny. This should be article about massacres, not about history from Adam and Eva.GlaubePL (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Context is paramount to understanding historical events.Trying to dismiss the events that led to the conflict (like it's a fairytale, re:"adam and eva") doesn't look good on you. Also, calling top scholars like Subtelny biased does more of the same.-Львівське (говорити) 17:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of doubious quotes from Subtelny in the article. For example: Ukrainian sources estimated the total number of Polish inhabitants in both Galicia and Volhynia at 300,000 including the 1930s settlers. 300k of Poles lived in Volhynia alone. Or it is misquoted or Subtelny is another S-F writer.GlaubePL (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So according to you Orest Subtelny is a "science fiction writer?" Context is of course important and the background section is quite short in comparison to the rest of the article.Faustian (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * An excellent article that dicusses the importance of context: .Faustian (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry but these text are out of date. We got newest books.--Paweł5586 (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing in that paper is dated or contradictory to information from newest books.Faustian (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticism
According to the Ukrainian historian, Yaroslav Tsaruk, who studied the materials collected by Siemaszko from Polish villagers, the number of ethnic Poles given by them, in some of the villages he is familiar with, does not correspond with the Ukrainian statistical data. According to Tsaruk, Siemaszko included in the number of Polish casualties those who emigrated before the commencement of these hostilities, and that Siemaszko in her book included colonies, subdivisions of villages and population points which were never separate administrative units, thus enlarging the number of Polish population points. Siemaszko also minimized or fails to mention the murders of Ukrainian civilians. Tsaruk stated that in the Volodymyr region initially there were attacks on Ukrainian villages by Polish-German police units which were retaliated in self-defence. According to Siemaszko 1915 Poles died there in the hands of Ukrainian Nationalists. According to Tsaruk - 430. Siemaszko replied in her book by stating that Tsaruk's research is based on statements made by local Ukrainians long after the war and "explained by psychological defense mechanisms". Ukrainian historian Ihor Ilyushin echoes Tsaruk's observations, questioning whether Siemaszko's approach, based on testimony from one side, can be truly scholarly, objective and impartial, and shows mistakes in Siemaszko's work. Ilyushin also states that because her father was a participant at the central time of the conflict he is not a credible witness. Bandurist (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Tsaruk is not historian, his book is amateur and written in emotional style (see Motyka and Hrytsiuk). GlaubePL (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Siemaszko's numbers of victims are supported by all historians - Polish and others, in Tsaruk side, even Ukrainians doubt about his reaserches.--Paweł5586 (talk) 09:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Tsaruk is an ethnographer who has collected all his information firsthand travelling in the villages that were affected and mentioned by Siemaszko. However, Siemaszko is an engineer, and not a historian, and her father cannot be considered without his specific POV. I have not come across any Ukrainian sources that doubt Tsaruk's research but I have not found any Ukrainian source that suoports Siemaszko.Bandurist (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "has collected all his information firsthand..." - Exactly, travelling and asking the perpetrators whether they killed Poles. Do you think this kind of research can be credible? I do not doubt Ukrainian sources accept Tsaruk research, because Ukrainian historiography about Ukrainian nationalists' crimes is in a very poor state. See for example the article of Taras Kurylo : Тим часом Україна гостро потребує критично-фахового обговорення ОУН. Саме уникання вiдвертого обговорення ОУН та масових вбивств цивiльного населення, якi вона здiйснила, лише бiльше провiнцiалiзують українську iсторичну науку, вiддаляють її вiд захiдних дослiджень.... My translation:
 * "''Meanwhile, Ukraine badly needs critical and professional discussion on the OUN. The sole avoidance of open discussion on OUN and massacres of the civilian population, which it perpetrated, only more marginalizes Ukrainian historical science, outlying [?] it from the Western research..."


 * I think the poor state of Ukrainian sources should be a matter of concern also on Wikipedia forum. GlaubePL (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's good that there is critcisim of some Ukrainian sources by other Ukrainian sources. Any specific, reliably-sourced critique of Ilyushin's or Tsaruk's work by a reliable source, or is this your attempt at original research?Faustian (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "has collected all his information firsthand..." - Exactly, travelling and asking the perpetrators whether they killed Poles." BTW, thanks for confessing that your POV is that virtually every Ukrainian Volhynian villager who was alive in 1944 was a perpetrator of mass murder. Tsaruk's work is peer-reviewed, published by the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. It's good to get eyewitness accounts from those times not just from one perspective. Can one imagine a historiography of events in Bosnia based solely on Serb, or only on Croat, or only on Bosnian Muslim, eyewitnesses? This seems to be the approach of some Polish researchers such as the Siemaszkos, which is then repeated here by some editors.


 * On a somewhat related note, Motyka, a reliable source, has stated that Tsaruk's work hasn't changed his mind about UPA ultimately being to blame - but has Motyka rejected Tsaruk's work completely? What has he said about Tsaruk's work specifically?Faustian (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not say every Volhynian Ukrainian villager killed Poles, but as OUN-B had a significant support from local population, and Ukrainian peasants were encouraged to take part in the massacres, some of Tsaruk's accounts must be biased or even contains clear denial. GlaubePL (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Motyka about Tsaruk, (my translation):
 * It is worth to mention Ukrainian 'kraioznavtsa' Iaroslav Tsaruk's work, who has dealt with the question of counting victims of Polish-Ukrainian conflict in the area of Włodzimierz Wołyński. One should remember using it, that the author scrupulously noted most of all Ukrainian casualties. - "Ukraińska partyzantka", p.27
 * In opinion of Iaroslav Tsaruk (...) soldiers of 27 Volhynian AK division perpetrated in that time [Operation "Storm" - GlaubePL] crimes in some Ukrainian villages. (...) These informations are not confirmed by Polish works on the Division, moreover doubts raise because of the fact that in his work Tsaruk assignes to Poles the crimes perpetrated by Germans [footnote: See Tsaruk, Trahediia..., p.30. 38-39, where it is said about killing of Ukrainians by Poles using tankette or even armored train.] This issue requires further research. - "Ukraińska partyzantka", p.359
 * Lately issued work of... Tsaruk makes a correction to Polish statements for Włodzimierz Woł. county. However it is illusion to think that created lists will change general view of the events. - "Ukraińska partyzantka", p.412. GlaubePL (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Grzegorz Hryciuk about I.Tsaruk (my translation):
 * Tsaruk's data has been developed solely on the basis of relations collected only in the 1990's. Their credibility is sometimes undermined by the Polish witnesses to the events of the war years. In the work of Tsaruk it can be seen sometimes traces of the literary talent which went too far [ślady zbyt daleko posuniętego "literackiego talentu autora"] - Hryciuk, "Przemiany...", p.270, footnote 280.


 * So, we have an example of quality of work issued by Ukrainian Academy of Sciences itself. I don't think Kurylo wrote only about Viatrovych. Mythmaking, illusions, denial, belle-lettres, science fiction - this is what Ukrainian historiography often offers. GlaubePL (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Not very strong criticism by Motyka...or Hryciuk. Motkya seems to admit that Tsaruk's work corrects some of the established work, even though it doesn't change the general picture. He states Tsaruk's work misattributes Polish actions to Germans ones but admits that it needs further study.  "Mythmaking, illusions, denial, belle-lettres, science fiction - this is what Ukrainian historiography often offers" - your POV about Ukrainian historiography, not that of Motyka. Fortunately English wikipedia is more objective.Faustian (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Marples was generally critical but not negative about Ilyushin's work. He was also not very critical of the work Ilyushin and his colleagues were doing with the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences - a a work referenced in this article. Marples' specific criticisms included that Ilyushin failed to distinguish adequately between Polish collaborators and Polish civilians, and he did not address the mas murder of Jews in 1939 adeqauately. However he did not dispute Ilyushin's critique of the Siemaszkos' work and he noted that Ilyushin was objective and used a wide range of sources. The well-deserved critcism of some Ukrainian sources applies to Ukrainian researchers such as Viatrovych or others - works not really used inapropriately here on this wikipedia article.Faustian (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * More about Ukrainian diaspora "scholarship":
 * "[CIA was]assisting their creation of semiacademic institutions and/or academic postions at established universities. From these formal and informal networks the pronationalist scholars promoted, with some success, self-serving, apologetic accounts of the past of the OUN-UPA, and, in some cases, of their own wartime activities. The line between scholarship and diaspora politics was often blurred, as nationalist scholars combined propaganda and activism with scholarly work. Lebed’s circle never condemned the crimes or the mass murders of the OUN, let alone admitted that they had taken place. On the contrary, it made denial, obfuscation, and white-washing of the wartime activities of the OUN and the UPA a central aspect of its intellectual activities. [Rudling, "The OUN, the UPA and the Holocaust...", p.19]"


 * Again Rudling:
 * "Following the establishment of academic institutions on an “ethnic” basis, the nationalists’ selective accounts of the past began appearing with established academic publishers and made inroads into the academic mainstream. From the 1970s, a new generation of nationalist academics, sympathetic to the OUN legacy, and mastering the language of political correctness, came to dominate the field of Ukrainian studies. Following the collapse of the USSR, apologetics for the OUN and UPA were increasingly articulated in terms of anti-colonialism, as the voice of the subaltern, and, in Canada, under the aegis of official multiculturalism. The pronationalist historians have generally failed to treat their nationalist heroes as objects of inquiry and instead used them as platforms to defend the nationalist mythologies into which they were socialized. Until recently, there were almost no critical studies of the Ukrainian research institutes themsleves. ["The OUN..., p.20]"


 * This is important, worth to repeat: "the nationalists’ selective accounts of the past began appearing with established academic publishers and made inroads into the academic mainstream." You have to be carefull with all Ukrainian/Ukrainian diaspora sources and Western sources which quote them uncritically. GlaubePL (talk) 06:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're starting to sound a bit paranoid about "the scholarship". PS: Rudling can eat it.--Львівське (говорити) 06:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Unless you can specify which academics are being discussed by Rudling, the criticism you quote is useless for our purposes. However, it must be noted that Rudling himself is no more reliable than any other reliable sourse, so that just because Rudling claims professor X is bad, does not mean that profesor X is bad (as long as professor X has credentials and publication history no worse than that of Rudling, of course).Faustian (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I quickly read through Rudling's article. As expected, no direct criticism of any source of controversy used in this article (unless I missed something). So it is simply irrelevant. An attack on X to discredit Y. Nice try. Faustian (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To Lvivske: rudling meets the criteria for being a reliable source. He may be contradicted by other relaible sources in which case both opinions should be included, but he ought not be dismissed.Faustian (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * By all means, I just dismiss him on a personal level for his ambiguous stance on the Ukrainian historian bogeyman.--Львівське (говорити) 15:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "no direct criticism of any source"? You missed a lot! For example about Subtelny: Senior diaspora historians have categorically denied that the UPA murdered Jews (page 21 Subtelny mentioned in the footnote 221). — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlaubePL (talk • contribs) 16:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Rudling again about Subtelny (my translation from Ukrainian): The most used [textbook in Ukraine] was... "Ukraina: a History" of Orest Subtelny.... Although O. Subtelny did not work a day in the archives of Ukraine before writing the book, it bacame elementary [? - orig. nastil'nyi]. "No Ukrainian article between 1991 and 1995 was considered complete without a reference to Subtelny in the footnotes. Subtelny, if you like, became the new Lenin" - writes David Marples. [Rudling, "Yushchenkiv fashist..." in: Tarik Cyril Amar, Ivan Balyns’kyi, and Yaroslav Hrytsak (eds.) Strasti za Banderoiu: statti ta essei (Kyiv: Hrani-T, 2010, p.247] GlaubePL (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, so I missed a mention in a footnote. We weren't quoting Subtelny on Jews here, so what's the relevence?Faustian (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

B-class review
This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations, and the editors achieve consensus on the neutrality. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Istrebitelni otriady NKVD
After the Soviet "liberation" some Poles joined Istrebitelni otriady NKVD and particpated in crimes.Xx236 (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

New images
Any reliable source for those? I'll wait before removing them.Faustian (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * They're a bit too graphic to wait to remove them, so I went ahead and did it. If they're too be put back into the article, they need to be accompanied by some solid sources. Volunteer Marek 17:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Dead link
Ukraine, Poland Seek Reconciliation Over Grisly History, Jan Maksymiuk, RFE/RL, May 12, 2006

Who is Jan Maksymiuk?Xx236 (talk) 09:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It works here: . About Maksymiuk: .Faustian (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect Jan Maksymiuk is a Belarus activist. I don't know about his UPA research. "According to Ukrainian estimates, the AK may have killed in retaliation as many as 20,000 Ukrainians in Volhynia." - "May have". Xx236 (talk) 08:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Rudling quotes Maksymiuk, who quotes unknown Ukrainian sources using words "May have". Rudling's line should be removed from the table, it's Ukrainian POV of unknown origins.Xx236 (talk) 08:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Ukrainian source says "21 000 - 24 000 of Ukrainians in all areas".Xx236 (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * According to the bio Maksymiuk is a political analyst for Radio Free Europe and a translator. More about his bio: .He is not an academic; he has a master's degree in physics from Warsaw University.  I see nothing wrong in reporting what he found, particularly if it's not controversial. you provided a good source though: [].   Faustian (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Good" sources are academic and "Istpravda" isn't academic.Xx236 (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The author of that article in Istpravda is a history professor, and deputy head of the Ukrainian Institute of Historical Memory.Faustian (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The title of the article is extremely biased, which makes the author not-so-academic.
 * Professors around the world have their small working fields but tend to comment everything. According to Hrycak Ukrainians aren't able to accept the history (even after more than 20 years of independence). Which articles about UPA crimes has published the history professor?  - as far as I understand his subject is rather "Western Ukrainians as Soviet victims". Xx236 (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless Hrycak referred to this guy specifically, his words are being used by you as original research. Article title is irrelevant; newspaper articles often have catchy titles. An interview with Hrytsak about Bandera called Bandera a romantic terrorist: .Faustian (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hrycak refers to many "guys", and the ones he doesn't seem to bew not so much welcome here. What about making the image of Ukrainina historiography less POV?Xx236 (talk) 08:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I repeat - the author is competent in another field - UPA-Soviet conflict. The same a professor competent in AK-German conflict isn't always competent in AK-UPA or AK-Soviet conflicts. Profesors are professors in their fields and citizens/activists/hobby researchers outside.
 * UPA and SB murdered not only Poles but also Ukrainians and members of mixed families. Do I understand correctly that the victims are less important for Ukrainians than victims of AK? Xx236 (talk) 06:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sine the UPA-Soviet conflict and the massacres of Polish civilians occurred on the same territory, a specialist in the former field is not so far removed from the latter.Faustian (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that Maksymiuk misquotes the area - he says "Volhynia" insteat of "Western Ukraine". It's typical for journalists.Xx236 (talk) 07:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

New "Więź" publishes an article by an Ukrainian  author uk:Портнов Андрій Володимирович (історик). I don't have the article, perhaps someone does and would be so kind to summarize it? A shorter version in Ukrainian Xx236 (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Xx236 (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't have an article about Портнов Андрій Володимирович.Xx236 (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

According to Gregorz Motyka ...
Twice almost the same text.Xx236 (talk) 07:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

have documented 33,454 Polish victims
Why to quote an obsolete (2000) text? Xx236 (talk) 10:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Ukrainian casualties
The paragraph doesn't infom about Ukrainian victims of Ukrainian formations. According to Timothy Snyder the number of Ukrainian victims of Ukrainians was comparable to the number of Polish victims in 1943. Xx236 (talk) 10:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * agreed, for context's sake this should be included in the introduction at the very least. --Львівське (говорити) 21:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article's introduction is disputed - since March 2012
Do you continue the dispute or the tag should be removed?Xx236 (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it can be removed.Faustian (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The whole article is a big mess. It is basically written to discredit the Ukrainian underground resistance and depict them as unreasonable manics. The author of the article is apparently geographically and historically challenged mixing regions of Galicia and Volhynia as well as Ukraine and West Ukraine altogether. As it is widely known the area was constantly contested by neighboring factions (not only Poles and Ukrainians) and Polish - Ukrainian struggle traces its roots back to times of the Grand Duchy of Kiev and Kingdom of Galicia and Volhynia, not the 18th century partition of Poland. However, after the partition practically the whole Volhynia ended up as part of the Russian Empire, not the Austrian Empire. Petliura did not have any intentions to expand westwards, but rather to defend Polish territorial claims and aggression as both Russian and Austrian empires were falling apart. The reason the author put Petliura in the article only proves his intentions to add another evidence of pointless barbarity of Ukrainians whose national leader Petliura became a famous anti-Semite along with the Poles number enemy Bohdan Khmelnytsky. The article also does not try provide any real reasoning to the hostilities for Ukrainian factions other than blind faith of Nazism. The paragraph about OUN-B clearly accuses Bandara's faction in Nazism in reference to Timothy Snyder's work without critical evaluation of his claims. There are no critical evaluation of Polish national policies other than to justify them such as "...Harsh policies implemented by the Second Polish Republic, while often provoked by the OUN-B violence..." According to the Polish historian Motyka, he approves forceful pacification of the issue rather than to find a middle ground. The article also completely fails to disclose real reasons for the volatile situation in the region and simply hangs number of blind claims cut out of context from various historians. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So called "Ukrainian underground resistance" successfully discredited itself by killing thousands of children, which is confirmed by numerous sources. 89.218.174.8 (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The article needs improvement, unless it is indeed propaganda, e.g. Why have entire OUN section duplicating another article? Xobbitua (talk) 11:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

POV title
The current title of the article reflects a translation of what Polish historiography calls the event, and only concerns the Polish point of view of the event. Is there not a neutral, descriptive title that can be used, or a common use english title? It seems to be partisan to choose "Volhynian Massacre" over the Ukrainian title "Volyn Tragedy", or to ignore Ukrainian deaths to prop up Polish losses. --Львівське (говорити) 21:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * IMO, Since there were many more Polish than Ukrainian victims some skew seems natural.Faustian (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well that's just a weight issue. Even at 2:1, does the Polish narrative take license to the article? Even if entirely Polish (forgetting the other argument), is the title neutral or wp:common? --Львівське (говорити) 01:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the most recent past discussion on this matter is here, though I think there has been half a dozen of them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Polish sources call the event "Volhynian slaughter" or "Volhynian-Galician slaughter" - "Rzeź Wołyńsko-Galicyjska". Western authors write about massacres of Poles or ethnic cleansing.Hedviberit (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * is there a common title among the scholarship? Based on the further reading section, using 'ethnic cleansing' to describe the event seems to be a trend (non use massacres in the title). I like Terles title, "Ethnic Cleansing of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia" tbh (to the point, sterile language, nothing to debate about it, etc.) --Львівське (говорити) 03:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a common title. There is a dispute in Polish scholarship whether it was ethnic cleansing or genocide. In the further reading section, you have extermination, genocide and ethnic cleansing. I understand you consider the word "massacre(s)" too inflammatory. Are you interested only in the title? There are 16 occurrences of this term across the article.
 * The word "massacres" is used by scholarly sources, and in many other cases here – Zawadka Morochowska massacres (Ukrainians killed by Poles), Massacre of Brzostowica Mała, Ponary massacre, Katyn massacre, Srebrenica massacre,  Massacre of Lviv professors, Naliboki massacre, Category:Massacres of Ukrainians during World War II etc.  It doesn't seem to be a problematic term. In my opinion, the current title is the best description of what happened. Ethnic cleansing is not more to the point, because it can be carried out without bloodshed.Hedviberit (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * i dont mind using the word massacres in the article, there were massacres for sure, just in ensuring the title and scope are neutral. Polish scholars dispute whether it was genocide on top of ethnic cleansing, not one or the other though, right? --Львівське (говорити) 18:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, the word "massacre" is used in both Polish and Western sources to describe the subject matter of this article. We've been over this. Unless you can present novel arguments here I don't see why the POV tag should be placed in the article. The issue was previously resolved, now you're trying to unresolve it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate you reverting to "your" version without actually discussing things. Using Motyka and ignoring other scholars, for one, and skewing figures is really POVy of you. You're a better editor than this behavior, VM.--Львівське (говорити) 16:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The particular numbers you changed were specifically sourced to Motyka, not to the table. So changing them mis-represents the source. To clarify it I added attribution. Additionally if we really went "by the table" then we'd put 200k as the upper bound, right? The other number-changing had to do with the conflation - again - of numbers who died in all the regions with just those for Volhynia.
 * As far as Motyka goes, this has also been discussed before. He is the major scholar here. Snyder's numbers, as well as that as some of the others, come from him (essentially Motyka did the archival hard work, published in Polish (and Ukrainian?) Snyder took those numbers and published them in English). And let's not start throwing around accusations of who's POVing what here.
 * Now, about the title. Is there an argument here that has not been previously discussed already? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * the lower bounds range from a smally 10k discrepancy, the upper bound fringe is hundreds of thousands off, and not even used by scholars. Might I add...you just added the 200k figure, too. So where are your priorities? --Львівське (говорити) 17:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You changed the lower bound, downward, because "that's what's in the table". Ok. If we're going to be consistent then we need to change the upper bound as well, in this case, upward, because 'that's what's in the table". Alternatively we could take what are probably the most reliable estimates, those of Motyka and just use these. That's what was there, essentially, before you started changing it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * upper bound doesnt come from credible sources, lower bound does. this isnt rocket appliances. --Львівське (говорити) 17:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I just want to say, isn't the premise of "make your own article, this article is for X" entirely in violation of WP:OWN? Regardless of a previous 'consensus', if there isn't enough content for a standalone article, it shouldn't be excluded on grounds of this article owning the narrative.--Львівське (говорити) 14:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems this article is still under 'ownership' and only allowed to represent the NPOV Polish-centric narrative with VM deleting other users' edits which show competing historiography. VM, I like you, but not these POVy edits against myself and others. --LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ ) 20:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This isn't about "ownership" it's about reflecting what reliable sources say. The recent edits were highly pov and not based on reliable sources. Also, they contained blatant factual errors (like that the Massacres coincided with Operation Tempest). It is also very pov and inaccurate to portray this as some kind of "Polish historiography" vs "Ukrainian historiography". That's not how this subject treated in sources. There's the "UPA-apologetic historiography" which few scholars take seriously, and there's everything else, the historiography of reliable sources, of which works by Polish historians are but a subset.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please explain this ES used to revert sourced content. Who is the we that has worked "worked way to hard on this article"? I'm also finding it difficult to comprehend how "no, this is just not the case" serves as a valid ES for rolling back. It certainly sounds like WP:OWN. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Or how about the above situation - I was reverted without justification and told to take it to talk, so I put a template in lieu of it. Nobody wanted to talk, so my template was reverted too. I people can't edit and wont be engaged, that just leads one direction...--LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ ) 00:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)